Women In North vs South India: How Political Stereotypes Are Shaped And Used For Short-Term Electoral Gains

When DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran recently made sweeping remarks comparing women in North India with their counterparts in Tamil Nadu, the backlash was swift and justified.

Comparing North India's woman population with that of Tamil Nadu, the four-time MP from Chennai Central, said that while women in Tamil Nadu are asked to study, their counterparts in North India are asked to "work in the kitchen" and "bear children".

Addressing students at Quaid-E-Millath Government College for Women, Maran said, "Our girls ought to be confident and proud with a laptop, whether you attend an interview or pursue postgraduation.

That confidence is in Tamil Nadu where we ask girls to study and study. What do they say in the North? Girls? Don't go to work, be at home, be in the kitchen, bear a child, that's your job."

If that was not irresponsible enough, the brother of billionaire Kalanithi Maran, added, "No, this is Tamil Nadu, a Dravidian state, the land of Kalaignar (former Chief Minister late M Karunanidhi), Anna (former Chief Minister CN Annadurai, and (Chief Minister) MK Stalin. Here, your progress is Tamil Nadu's progress. That's why global companies come to Chennai because everyone here is educated, not just in Tamil, but in English as well. They lead. The government plays a key role in women's progress. We will always get your love and support," adding that Tamil Nadu is the best state in India and that its CM Shri MK Stalin is the country's best Chief Minister.

These remarks aimed clearly at appeasement of voters, drew sharp criticism immediately. Narayanan Thirupathy, BJP spokesperson in Tamil Nadu, said, "Once again, Dayanidhi Maran has abused north Indian people. I feel very bad about how these people are allowed to do this, although this is regular from DMK. I don't think Dayanidhi Maran has common sense."

BJP leader Anila Singh called Maran's remarks "unfortunate" and added that, "He has forgotten that he lives in Bharat and Bharat worships Shakti. If he thinks that Shakti can be divided into North, South, East and West, he doesn't understand our culture. I want to ask him about what women in the party he has allied with, about Sonia Gandhi or Priyanka Gandhi Vadra or our President Droupadi Murmu. This divisive politics is not going to work."

A Familiar Aggression

But the episode is not just about one politician's careless words. It exposes a deeper pattern in Indian politics where leaders repeatedly reopen regional fault lines for short-term electoral gains.

This is will understood that this is no more just about South Indians versus North Indians. Ordinary citizens across India, from Kanyakumari to Kashmir, share the same aspirations. They want good education for their children, stable jobs, safety, dignity and a better quality of life. The real divide is not geographical. It is between citizens who seek progress and political elites who weaponise identity for power.

A pattern across parties

Maran's remark did not emerge in isolation. Leaders across parties have periodically leaned on the North-South narrative whenever it suited their political messaging.
In 2021, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, addressing a gathering in Kerala, contrasted what he described as "superficial" politics in North India with what he called more "substantive" politics in the South.

Even if the intention was to praise southern political engagement, the framing created an unnecessary hierarchy. It reinforced stereotypes instead of encouraging national cohesion. Critics pointed out that such generalisations reduce complex political cultures to crude regional labels.

In 2024, Congress MP DK Suresh reignited regional sentiment during a debate on tax devolution.

"The Centre is collecting taxes from southern states and redistributing them unfairly," he said, accusing New Delhi of systematically short-changing the South.
Fiscal federalism is a legitimate subject of debate, but once framed as North versus South, economics stops being about data and starts becoming about identity. Reasoned discussion gives way to grievance politics.

From the DMK, regional identity and language politics have become almost permanent campaign planks. Chief Minister MK Stalin in 2022 alleged that the Centre showed regional bias during the evacuation of Indian students from war-hit Ukraine, claiming that Tamil students were neglected.

His son, Udhayanidhi Stalin, later warned that Hindi would "erase" Tamil if imposed. "This is not about communication, it is about domination," he said, echoing fears rooted in history but amplified far beyond present reality.

Such statements energise party cadres and fill rally grounds, but they rarely translate into governance solutions. Complex social and political questions are reduced to easy binaries where nuance disappears and emotion takes over.

Ordinary Indians are not divided

It must be said clearly that South Indians are not anti-national and North Indians are not backward. These caricatures exist only in political speeches and social media echo chambers.

Tamil Nadu's success in public health, education and social welfare deserves admiration. So do the achievements of northern states, whether in infrastructure, entrepreneurship, sports or administrative reform.

India's middle class moves freely across states. Professionals from the North build careers in Chennai and Bengaluru. South Indians head companies and institutions in Delhi and Mumbai. Students migrate across regions for education. Families intermarry. Culture blends effortlessly.
The idea that citizens are locked in regional hostility is simply false. It is politicians who manufacture conflict.

The colonial origins of this divide

What makes this pattern tragic is that it mirrors the British colonial strategy of divide and rule. The fissures politicians exploit today were first engineered by colonial administrators and missionaries.

In 1816, British civil servant Francis Whyte Ellis identified that Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam belonged to a separate language family. He coined the term "Dravidian" to describe this linguistic group. His work was purely academic. He never spoke of race, bloodlines or superiority.

But this linguistic insight was soon distorted. German philologist Max Müller proposed that Indo-European languages entered India through migrating "Aryans." Müller himself insisted this was a linguistic theory, not a racial one. Yet colonial writers twisted his work to suggest racial conquest.

Missionary scholar Bishop Robert Caldwell went further, subtly blending language with race in his writings. The real damage, however, was done by British anthropologist Herbert Hope Risley, who classified Indians using skulls and nose measurements. He declared North Indians "Aryan" and South Indians "Dravidian," creating a hierarchy that was both racist and pseudo-scientific.

The objective was political. By convincing Indians that they belonged to fundamentally different races, the British ensured people fought each other instead of the empire.

How modern DNA science exposed the myth

Today, that entire colonial framework has been dismantled by genetics.
Modern DNA studies show that Indians are a highly mixed population. Two ancient genetic components, known as ANI (Ancient North Indian) and ASI (Ancient South Indian), exist across the subcontinent. South Indians carry ANI ancestry. North Indians carry ASI ancestry. Every caste and region shows genetic blending.

No serious geneticist today supports the binary Aryan-Dravidian race theory. Language does not determine DNA. Culture does not equal bloodline. The old colonial model is scientifically discredited.

Yet politicians continue to recycle it because it remains emotionally potent.

Identity as a political shield

Today's leaders are not victims of colonial thinking. They are active beneficiaries of it.
When industries leave a state, it is easier to shout about discrimination from Delhi. When unemployment rises, it is easier to blame another region. When corruption surfaces, it is easier to mobilise linguistic pride. Identity becomes a convenient shield when governance falters. This is not ideology. It is opportunism.

The silent social damage

The damage goes beyond elections. Young people absorb stereotypes. Social media turns nuance into outrage. Trust between communities erodes.

A farmer in Bihar and a farmer in Thanjavur face the same climate challenges. A working woman in Delhi and one in Coimbatore deal with similar workplace struggles. A student in Patna and one in Madurai worry about the same shrinking job market. Their problems are shared. Their enemy is not each other, but poor governance and cynical politics.

Federalism requires maturity

India is a federal democracy. Disagreements between states and the Centre are natural. But mature leadership demands dialogue, data and solutions, not dramatic speeches designed to provoke outrage.

You can celebrate Tamil without insulting Hindi speakers. You can criticise Delhi without demonising North India. You can defend federal rights without threatening national unity. That is what statesmanship looks like.

Calling it out

Dayanidhi Maran's remark deserves condemnation, but so do similar statements across parties. Not because they offend one region, but because they poison public discourse. True leadership unites. It does not divide for applause.

India survived invasions, colonisation and poverty because its people refused to splinter permanently. Today's politicians would do well to learn from history, not repeat its worst mistakes.
The British divided us to rule. Our leaders must unite us to govern. Anything else is not regional pride. It is a betrayal of the nation.